The DNA-1 is a great amp for any speaker. I have owned numerous McCormack amps and found them to be at their best with the Audible Illusions Modulus 3A preamp. The AL tubes seem to work wonders adding a bloom to the sound while maintaining the McCormack speed. It seems to make everything more musical and more music comes through. The AL is a Stereophile class "A" component and I feel it takes the McCormack up also. You always have the option of one of Steve McCormack's upgrade paths beyond the deluxe version. In comparison, the Bryston sounds lean and leaves no doubt it is a transistor amp. I have actually listened at a friends house to a pair of Revelations with these amps and the McCormack/Audible combination won by quite a distance.
Bryston vs. McCormack
After deciding first on the Magnepan 1.6QR, then the Vandersteen 2ce Signature, I auditioned the Revelation 3 at length this weekend and bought a pair. They sounded that good to my ear. A Bryston 3B-ST was the amp of choice for the Maggies and Vandesteens, but the Hales are a different animal. Which would be a better match for the Hales: A Bryston 3B-ST or a McCormack DNA-0.5 or DNA-1? The only other part of the system already purchased is a CAL Alpha/Delta DAC-transport combination. For the pre-amp I've been leaning toward tubes, but mostly to tame the Bryston's (perceived) upper end brilliance or add a little focus for the Vandersteens. The overall characteristics of the Hales' is very close to the right sound: tight bass; not overly emphasized mid-range or treble, but not laid back, either; good timbre; smooth vocals. Which of these amps is going to lend the least amount of color to this sound? Also, any comments about putting a tube top-end into this system?